Preexistence

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 06 2009,08:52)

thethinker wrote:

Quote

But the prophets were not sent into the world FROM HEAVEN.

I do not believe you stated that. I assure you the one who sent the true prophets is in heaven. In other words since they were sent from God they were sent from heaven.

Kerwin,
The prophets did not come down from heaven. Come on! Paul was a prophet. Show where he likened his apostleship and his calling to being sent from heaven.

thinker

December 7, 2009 at 4:07 pm#162723

Participant

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 07 2009,05:24)

Trinitarians make Yeshua HaMoshiach into a “Golden Calf”.

:cool:

Explain 2 Peter 3:18:

(Young's Literal Translation)
“…and increase ye in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; to him [is] the glory both now, and to the day of the age! Amen.”

Are you prepared to charge Peter with making a golden calf out of Jesus? By your logic this is what Peter did by attributing the glory to Jesus Christ. Then he said, “Amen.” Come on Con. Say “amen” with Peter.

Peter is an idolater also for saying that Jesus Christ is the Savior. Either Peter is an idolater or you are disobedient. You know what I think.

thinker

December 7, 2009 at 4:42 pm#162728

Participant

Quote (martian @ Dec. 06 2009,12:37)

Frankly I am a little sick of those that accuse me of ignoring clear scripture and accuse me of being unsaved because I do not follow their particular interpretation of scripture.

This is laughable! Why? Because it is you and every other ‘Arian” and “Unitarian” here that is ignoring clear scriptures and the Greek structure of their text.

Since you and others by your statements and doctrines claim to know more than the Greek and Hebrew Scholars, those who translated the English versions for us, then please humor us and explain why they are not correct.

Tell us why didn’t the Translators translate a scripture like “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will…“, to say something like…“the Fathers plan has come down from heaven, to do the Fathers will”. The translators could have done that if the Greek text would have allowed for it.

But it is not translated that way because that is not what Jesus said nor is it what he meant. But it is pure inference by you and others that change Jesus clear meaning!

So Martian since you are so right then why don’t you break it down for us and explain why we should change the meaning of the Greek text which proves the Preexistence of Jesus?

Come on mister, show us how the experts are wrong and address the following post which is proof that the text cannot be read the way the Unitarians read it.

See if you can do this rather than just plaster the pages with a bunch of apologetics as a means of diversion!

John 6:38-40
For “I have come down (katabainō) from heaven, not to do my own will“, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is obvious what Jesus meant, but men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth by misinterpreting the clear meaning of the text in which the authors intended and which the translators translated.

The Greek construction of the text concerning the preexistence of Jesus does not allow for a “Unitarian” interpretation.

The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined…

1) to go down, come down, descend
a) the place from which one has come down from
b) to come down

“In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“.

katabainō is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood!

“The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.”

Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above.

“The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action.

“The indicative mood” is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.

”For I came down (katabainō) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38

The same word is used here…

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God “descending (katabainō,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16

And here…

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2

Was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” come down from heaven? Or did they really descend from heaven?

Jesus said plainly that he came “From God” and “went to God”.

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that “he was come from God, and went to God“; John 13:3

Again the Greek word come is in the “active voice” meaning Jesus did the action, and it is the indicative mood which means “the action really occurred”.

When Jesus ascended to heaven., it was Jesus that did the ascending! The scriptures do not tell us the Father took him to heaven!

Jesus words were clear, for he never said or even in the slightest way implied that he was or came from a plan or thought of the Father!

Jesus puts the nail in the coffin for those who questioned what he was saying by the following words…

What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before”? John 6:62

Again the word “Ascend” is in the present tense and active voice which means that Jesus is doing the action.

Jesus is going to “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”!

Was he returning to a “plan or thought” or was he returning to the Father in heaven from where he came from and to the Glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with “the glory which I had with thee before the world was“.

The Greek word for “I had” is Strong's G2192 – echō which is defined as…

1) to have, i.e. to hold

a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as 2) to have i.e. own, possess

Again “I had” is in the “imperfect tense”, the “active voice”, and the “indicative mood”, so there is no way Jesus was saying “I shared his glory because I was in his thought and plan”!

To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny the simple truths of the scriptures that tell us that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning of all of creation!

The Jews mumured among themselves because Jesus said he was the Bread of Life that came down from heaven and many turned back because it was a hard pill they could not swallow!

John 6:61, 62
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before“?

December 7, 2009 at 4:46 pm#162730

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 07 2009,11:07)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 07 2009,05:24)

Trinitarians make Yeshua HaMoshiach into a “Golden Calf”.

:cool:

Explain 2 Peter 3:18:

(Young's Literal Translation)
“…and increase ye in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; to him [is] the glory both now, and to the day of the age! Amen.”

Peter is an idolater also for saying that Jesus Christ is the Savior. Either Peter is an idolater or you are disobedient. You know what I think.

thinker

Jack

True.

He accuses us of giving to much honor and glory to Jesus, yet Jesus said we are to give him the same honor as we do the Father.

They accuse us of seeing Jesus as an idol, yet it seems that they see him as a worm.

December 7, 2009 at 5:07 pm#162735

GeneBalthrop

Participant

WJ…………Why go to the Greeks to learn, why not let the Spirit of GOD TEACH YOU the TRUTH> “Brethern you have (NO) need of a teacher , for the Spirit (ITSELF) shall teach you all things”. The Spirit (intellect) to recognize truth is the guiding light. Surely not the Greeks and your 200 scholars who run you around a thousand rabbit trails and causing you to ever learn but never coming into the true Knowledge of GOD. IMO

peace and love to you and yours……………..gene

December 7, 2009 at 5:10 pm#162736

Participant

Quote (Gene @ Dec. 07 2009,12:07)

peace and love to you and yours……………..gene

Gene

But you assume that the Scholars did not have the Spirit!

You also assume that the Holy Spirit will contradict the Greek text!

You take an English Tranlsation and infer your own meaning to them, and in so doing you make the word of God of none effect!

December 7, 2009 at 5:17 pm#162738

banana

Participant

Quote (martian @ Dec. 07 2009,04:44)

SORRY TYPO ERROR
SOME do not want Jesus to be a normal human because it sets the standard for perfected humanity very high.

Did you even read Philippians 2:5-8
Why O why that is all I can say to you again and again Scriptures get put in front of you and you still insist otherwise. I am sitting here and shaking my head. In a way I understand you, cause I was like you long ago, but I don't think I argued with the person that told us about Jesus preexisting. Then long ago we went to the Catholic Church too. We never read the Bible then, either. Jesus emptied Himself and became obedient to the point of death on the cross. Was Jesus an ordinary man, No. If He would have been He would have sinned just like an ordinary man. All have fallen short of the glory of God. Have you ever seen a 12 year old boy go into any Church or Temple and preach? No. He knew where He came from. How else could He have said what He did in John 17:5.
Irene
Irene

December 7, 2009 at 5:29 pm#162739

Anonymous

Inactive

How sad for you! Being sooooo blind. when scriptures show you who our Lord God is. He even tells us; why do you say show us the Father? When you see me you see the Father. And blessed are those who dont see and still believe. Scripture tell us he is KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, and the Almighty! Also tells us he is our only SAVIOR, He is our LORD, He is the CREATOR! he will judge us, He is who we will spend eternity with. You all say trinitarians believe in three Gods and that is not so There is one Lord God who came in the flesh,(its in scripture) and ascended back to heaven and sends us the Holy Spirit! ONe GOD, yet you are trying to worship GOD, and obey Jesus's words, to gain the holy Spirit when they are ONE! except you set Jesus much lower. You need to read threw all the new testament again and see who Jesus really is and how much you truly need him. ITS ALL ABOUT JESUS!! And all that God is in the Old Testament is the same of Jesus in the new. WHAT A AWESOME GOD!

December 7, 2009 at 6:00 pm#162748

Participant

Quote (Gene @ Dec. 08 2009,04:07)

peace and love to you and yours……………..gene

Uh Gene,
It is your man Martian who goes to the Greeks to learn. Martian believes that the Logos means “speech.” This was the view of Plato a Greek philosopher. Plato taught that the Logos of John 1:1 was “verbal expression or thought.” So it is you and Martian who “go to the Greeks to learn.”

Plato 's views were based in a mixture of mystery religions. Yet you guys acccuse trinitarians of believing in a mystery religion.

Take the log out of your own eye Gene!

thinker

December 7, 2009 at 6:13 pm#162751

Participant

WorshippingJesus said to Martian:

Quote

And here…

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2

Was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” come down from heaven? Or did they really descend from heaven?

Ladies and Gentleman….

May I please have your attention….

The winner and still the undisputed champion by a knock out is….

WORSHIPPINGJESUS!!

——————–

December 7, 2009 at 7:07 pm#162767

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 08 2009,05:00)

Quote (Gene @ Dec. 08 2009,04:07)

peace and love to you and yours……………..gene

Plato 's views were based in a mixture of mystery religions. Yet you guys acccuse trinitarians of believing in a mystery religion.

Take the log out of your own eye Gene!

thinker

Yep I went to the greek language as explained in Bible dictionaries. just like WJ does.

December 7, 2009 at 7:09 pm#162768

Participant

I previously posted this definition. Which shows that the words heaven and God are often used interchangeably in the NT.
Word of the Month – שמים Heaven
By: Jeff A. Benner

The Hebrew word for “heaven” is שמים shamayim. There is some debate over the origins and meanings of this word but, there are a few common theories.  1. Derived from the unused root שמה shamah possibly meaning lofty. The plural form of this word would be שמים shamayim.  2. Derived from the root שמם shamam meaning Desolate, in the sense of a dry wind blowing over the land drying it out. The plural form of this word would also be shamayim. 3. The word shamayim may be the Hebrew word מים mayim, meaning water, and the prefix ש sh meaning like. Combined, the word שמים shamayim would mean “like water.”  Aside from the debate over the origins of the word it is clear that the word is commonly used in the Biblical text for “sky.” It is frequently used in conjuction with the word ארץ erets, meaning land (see Gen 1:1, 2:1 and 14:19), representing the whole of creation and the domain of God.   In the New Testament this word was used as a Euphamism (one word used in place of another) for God. This can be seen in some of the parables where the book of Luke (written for Gentiles) uses the phrase “Kingdom of God” whereas Matthew (written to Jews) uses “Kingdom of Heaven.” In this context, heaven is meant to represent God, not a place.

Whether the scripture is written in Greek or Hebrew the authors are all Hebrew and thought with a Hebrew mindset. They did not perceive “heaven” as some transcendental place separate from the natural realm. Jesus said the Kingdom of God/heaven is here – not over there or up there.

I have already posted the reality of figurative and literal language used in your context.
Here is an article that illustrates that truth.

“The bread of God is he which comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world…I came down from heaven” (Jn. 6:33,38).
These words, and others like them, are misused to support the wrong idea that Jesus existed in Heaven before his birth. The following points, however, must be noted.
1. Trinitarians take these words as literal in order to prove their point. However, if we are to take them literally, then this means that somehow Jesus literally came down as a person. Not only is the Bible totally silent about this, but the language of Jesus being conceived as a baby in Mary’s womb is made meaningless. Jn.6:60 describes the teaching about the manna as a saying “hard to take in” (Moffatt’s Translation); i.e. we need to understand that it is figurative language being used. 2. In Jn. 6, Jesus is explaining how the manna was a type of himself. The manna was sent from God in the sense that it was God who was responsible for creating it on the earth; it did not physically float down from the throne of God in Heaven. Thus Christ’s coming from Heaven is to be understood likewise; he was created on earth, by the Holy Spirit acting upon the womb of Mary (Lk.1:35). 3. Jesus says that “the bread that I will give is my flesh” (Jn.6:51). Trinitarians claim that it was the ‘God’ part of Jesus which came down from Heaven. But Jesus says that it was his “flesh” which was the bread which came down from Heaven. Likewise Jesus associates the bread from Heaven with himself as the “Son of man” (Jn. 6:62), not ‘God the Son’. 4. In this same passage in Jn. 6 there is abundant evidence that Jesus was not equal to God. “The living Father has sent me” (Jn. 6:57) shows that Jesus and God do not share co-equality; and the fact that “I live by the Father” (Jn. 6:57) is hardly the ‘co-eternity’ of which Trinitarians speak. 5. It must be asked, When and how did Jesus ‘come down’ from Heaven? Trinitarians use these verses in Jn. 6 to ‘prove’ that Jesus came down from Heaven at his birth. But Jesus speaks of himself as “he which cometh down from heaven” (v.33,50), as if it is an ongoing process. Speaking of God’s gift of Jesus, Christ said “My Father is giving you the bread” from Heaven (v.32 Weymouth). At the time Jesus was speaking these words, he had already ‘come down’ in a certain sense, in that he had been sent by God. Because of this, he could also speak in the past tense: “I am the living bread which came down from Heaven” (v.51). But he also speaks about ‘coming down’ as the bread from Heaven in the form of his death on the cross: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (v.51). So we have Jesus speaking here of having already come down from Heaven, being in the process of ‘coming down’, and still having to ‘come down’ in his death on the cross. This fact alone should prove that ‘coming down’ refers to God manifesting Himself, rather than only referring to Christ’s birth. This is conclusively proved by all the Old Testament references to God ‘coming down’ having just this same meaning. Thus God saw the affliction of His people in Egypt, and ‘came down’ to save them through Moses. He has seen our bondage to sin, and has ‘come down’ or manifested Himself, by sending Jesus as the equivalent to Moses to lead us out of bondage.

December 7, 2009 at 7:18 pm#162769

Participant

WJ and thethinker,
A question if you will.
Do you believe that Heaven (the heaven that Christ “came down from”) is a literal separate place then our realm?

December 7, 2009 at 8:05 pm#162773

Participant

I need to say something aside from doctrine.
I have seen something creeping up in the posts to me AND FROM ME. An antagonism and confrontational attitude that does not speak well of being in Christ example. Smart-alik comments and saying people are not saved because of their doctrine is a sad condition for us to find ourselves in.
I know that there may be some that believe they are expressing “righteous anger” as Christ did when he over turned the money lenders, but that action by Christ was certainly not the norm on how he handled people.
I remember somewhere that we are to speak the truth in love, but I do not see that in some of the posts on here.
It is God’s right to decide who is saved and who is not and none of our abilities are so finely tuned that we can ascertain from a forum who is in that group.
It was posted some time back that I left in a “tantrum”. The truth is I found the way in which we were all using the forum as an unhealthy thing. I found myself being adversarial in other aspects of my life and losing sleep upset over some of the things that were said.
I do not wish to be an adversarial person. The members of my church used to call me passion fruit because the music I wrote carried a passion for the love of Jesus and his relationship with his bride. I look in the mirror after a period of time in this adversarial atmosphere and wonder if that person is still here.
I said all of that to say this. I may disagree with your doctrines, but I have had no right to make it personal against you. For that I repent and ask the boards forgiveness.
I returned to this forum because I found a few that I could actually agree with. I really wish there was a forum for all involved in which we could express ourselves with ONLY those that agree with us. Unfortunately I have found myself and others seeming to want the confrontation. We seem to thrive (at least for a while) on the adversarial atmosphere. We seem so intent on pushing our own doctrine on others that we lose the attitude of Christ. I cannot speak for anyone else but for me that is not acceptable.
There are probably those that live in an illusion that this may not apply to them. If history proves anything it is that those are probably the ones that should be the most careful about it.

I may choose to leave again. Some will say it is because I cannot prove my doctrine. If that spells victory for you it is a small thing. If I do leave it will be because I do not wish to drink of the anger and antagonism any more.

Enough said. Take it as you will

December 7, 2009 at 11:24 pm#162802

Participant

Quote (martian @ Dec. 07 2009,14:09)

I previously posted this definition. Which shows that the words heaven and God are often used interchangeably in the NT.
Word of the Month – שמים Heaven
By: Jeff A. Benner

Martian

Yes, of course “Benner” the lonely supposed Greek and Hebrew scholar with his “Mechanical” translation which is based on taking single words in the Hebrew and translating them the same regardless of context or the fact that Hebrew and Greek words like any other language may have different meanings.

I have asked this of Gene without any success. Do you have any more information on this guy?

Thats OK, I just found some.

He has a “Honorary Doctor of Ministry degree in Hebrew Language Studies, Georgetown Wesleyan University of the Americas (2008)”. Thats It?

Gene has been saying this guy was a Greek and Hebrew scholar for years here and now I see he just got an “Honorary” degree for Hebrew studies last year.

Which is Ironic since the Wesleyans are Trinitarians.

Do you have anymore information to support his claims seeing that his Degree is an “Honorary” degree in Hebrew studies and not the Greek and simply means he didn't attend College for his degree?

And as I thought you did not address the post or the Greek language, tenses, voice, or mood Etc, which of course Brenner ignores apparantly!

December 7, 2009 at 11:43 pm#162811